Dr. Andrew Gibson

For those working and studying in Irish higher education, the rapidly expanding range and types of academic misconduct are prompting renewed institutional and sectoral efforts to safeguard academic integrity. Central to dealing with such a critical topic is understanding what those working and studying in Irish higher education know and believe about academic integrity. This project will evaluate the challenges, costs, and benefits of adapting the ICAI-McCabe surveys of faculty and student attitudes and beliefs about academic integrity for use within the HEI sector in Ireland.

ACT-AI Academy aims to establish a pan European academy for student-teachers, in-service teachers, and school leaders, focusing on equipping and/or upskilling them with the competences required to utilise AI effectively and ethically within the educational context, as well as part of their professional engagement. Additionally, the project aims to raise awareness about the potential benefits of AI for enhancing educational outcomes and supporting the holistic development of students while addressing societal and ethical challenges. It seeks to increase awareness within the educational community and advocate for policy recommendations to ensure the responsible and equitable integration of AI in education.

The recent call for as well as subsequent increase in the financial supports provided to postgraduate researchers (PGR) and the subsequent debate concerning their status within the academic `ecosystem" (for want of a better term), has largely been based on macro level data and anecdotal evidence. As noted by the Irish government commissioned report (Johnson and Cagney 2023) there is little in the way of fine- grained data regarding PGRs financial situation and contexts. Beyond the `income" component (which for convenience we will refer to as the `stipend" paid to students), little is known about the expenditure dimension of being a PGR. In summary, the study has been designed to investigate the financial costs associated with full and part-time doctoral study. The key areas to be explore are: 1) sources of income; 2) the extent and use of paid employment; 3) patterns of expenditure pertaining to: a) living costs (e.g. accommodation, food, utilities, child care etc.) and b) doctoral programme related activities; 4) the effects of financial situations on aspects of study and non-study life; 5) the demographical characteristics in relation to `1 to 4".

Whilst there is a small but significant literature regarding the doctoral supervision process, most of this is predicated on a one-to-one relationship between a single postgraduate researcher (aka student) and a single supervisor. However, this is only one possible configuration of the student-supervisor relationship and, contested terminology notwithstanding, co-supervision or joint supervision (e.g. two or more supervisors working with a postgraduate researcher) is also utilised widely within many higher education settings. The current research on co-supervision highlights issues not dissimilar to those associated with the one-to-one supervision process including, for instance, workload, expectations and outcomes, purpose of the doctorate, disciplinary location, style, and communication and feedback. However, this research is very much in its infancy and there is a need to gain a deeper and fuller understanding of the particular benefits and challenges of co- supervision in many of these areas. Indeed, our reading of the literature and experience as supervisors suggests a particular need for further research on 'communication and feedback' within co-supervisory relationships, given its centrality and rhizomatic connections to other aspects. We have structured the study around the following research questions with an emphasis on exploring the role of `feedback" , as we see it as a pivotal process in doctoral education: " Why do supervisors and students enter into co-supervision arrangements? " What value (educational and research) is ascribed by supervisors and postgraduate researcher to the decision to adopt a co-supervision structure? " What are the mechanisms and processes which inform and structure doctoral co- supervision? " How is the process of offering and responding to feedback on supervisees" work facilitated? " What do supervisors and supervisees see as the benefits and/or disadvantages of the feedback process within a co-supervision structure?